shel wrote:You're suggesting that religion was a big help in, for example, the Native American genocide?

Among other things.

For one thing it takes effort to intentionally skew religious views to suite ones actions, if those actions seem incongruent with religious values. So in that sense religion would be a hindrance.

Well the Crusades disprove your point, for instance, so do deaths that can be directly attributed to religious fanaticism due to literal interpretation of some passages in holy books, and so on and so forth. Once you find proper argumentation inside a book seen as holy, you attribute such actions to the mandate of a divine source and they become morally beyond debate. Whatever atrocity committed in the name of "insert name", becomes morally righteous. This is particularly true in the religions that hold truths by revelation, as Abrahamic religions. It's a world of trouble to change a single line within their canon.

Plus, the barriers of superiority/ inferiority fomented by religions (believers vs non- believers) are pasture for all sort of corruptions.Religion is clearly not the only catalyst of total war and other forms of indiscriminate violence. Nobody here is claiming that to be the case as we are all aware that people seem to be able to invent all sorts of rationales for mass killing without feeling the need to cite the will of God. However, religious violence can take a particularly intense and ruthless character, if the objects of that violence are seen as blaspheming or insulting God, as the enemies of God or his people, as savages, heathens, without soul and what have you. My point is that although religions aren't the sole rational used to justify violence, some of them have violence so deeply rooted in their scriptures and traditions that under the right circumstances they become facilitators instead of hindrances, as you claim, to wage war upon those who don't share the same faith.

But the most absurd part of this is that religious or even minor ideological motivations were needed at all. The American continent was a huge resource just waiting to be taken. If those who took it had no religious or ideological motivations or justifications for taking it would they have been like, "damn, look at this place, all this land, the gold... but we can't take it because we have no religious or ideological basis for doing so. Back to the old world, boys!"

Absurd is your denial to acknowledge the tremendous power religion can over the masses, how it has been used in history to shape public opinion and action and the way in which it can make people's ideas malleable to pursue the worldly purposes of an elite - religiously motivated or not - thinking their actions are ethical.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people. That's what you are saying. We all know where that leads.Malcom though, is providing a deeper analysis of this issue. If I would settle for the removal of hate speech from religious books, he analyses the belief system itself and how it influences people's minds due to the way it is conceived. He provides an explanation on why -and how to a certain extent- as species, we should go beyond religion and justifies it. Somehow I believe we're centuries behind such step, but it's a beautiful dream.

Dechen Norbu wrote:My point is that although religions aren't the sole rational used to justify violence, some of them have violence so deeply rooted in their scriptures and traditions that under the right circumstances they become facilitators instead of hindrances, as you claim, to wage war upon those who don't share the same faith.

True. However, for those willing to see their faith as a "living" tradition, the violence in their scriptures can serve as a stark lesson of what can be overcome and surpassed.

So, removal of "hate speech" from religious texts doesn't seem to be the solution. Removal of "hate speech" from human minds, removal of beginningless ignorance, would seem to be the task.

If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment

Dechen Norbu wrote:My point is that although religions aren't the sole rational used to justify violence, some of them have violence so deeply rooted in their scriptures and traditions that under the right circumstances they become facilitators instead of hindrances, as you claim, to wage war upon those who don't share the same faith.

True. However, for those willing to see their faith as a "living" tradition, the violence in their scriptures can serve as a stark lesson of what can be overcome and surpassed.

Malcolm wrote:Other people foolishly imputed the idea that I was advocating tossing out all human "religious" activity. "Religious activity" and religions are not the same thing. One can belong to a religion, for example, and not engage in any religious activity. One can engage in much so called "religious activity" without belonging to a religion.

No one is foolish on this board. You often attack religion in the in the content of your posts. You have added religions and Buddhism to your target list which had Tulkus on it. These are sophistry. You are attacking religion in the posts and merely saying we need to evolve the planet out of them means they will be ended which is your newest target in general with Buddhism in particular. You do not say it outright often about the need to make the Tulku system (you mentioned HHDL, Karmapa system in the past as parts of that Tulku system too) and religions and Buddhism disappear but enough times as they are your agenda supported by a few friends.

On this thread you attacked religions as why they need to be no more (ended, destroyed, etc. despite your play on words). Some are there as on in older threads, some have been set invisible in this thread like when you said you want to see religions evolved out of (ended, killed of) because: religion is the breeding ground of fanatics. Many other quotes too here set invisible.

You also accuse others of not reading and call any opponent a religious fanatic. I said before that I did not abandon my religion like you did recently, but many years ago. However you do not read and merely attack misquoting which is what you accuse others of and called me a religious fanatic! No. As I said before and misread in zeal, my only concern is to respect the beliefs and religions and Buddhism of many others in this their gathering (cyber)place and respect their many and collective dimensions.

Malcolm wrote:

heart wrote:I have seen plenty of us vs. them mentality outside of religion, so much indeed that I don't think it has anything in particular to do with religion.

Religions exemplify the most pernicious aspect tribalism.Tribes create religions in order to create social cohesion.

Dharma is not like that.

Buddhism, unfortunately, is Dharma reduced to the level of a religion. This is extremely clear when one examines the history of Buddhism in Asia.

M

Someone summed it up here nicely as, roughly: I don't take simple blanket statements like all religions are evil seriously. This is a religious & Buddhist forum so why are you surprised?

Dechen Norbu wrote:That's irrelevant, Greg. In the end, what matters is the impact it had on the world. If in the name of any religion harm is done and that same religion provides passages that support those actions, it's not without blame. Otherwise it's like saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, but guns are a big help while at it.

Of course it is relevant. It is a clear example of how people utilise religious teachings (cherry-pick) in order to serve their own self-centred ends. Christ's teachings directly overturned and reinterpreted the ethical/moral standards (and social organisation) outlined in the Old Testament. You think it was mere coincidence that the Jewish religious hierarchy of the time (which was in league with the Roman occupiers) wanted him dead? People calling themselves Christians merely ignore the changes, because they do not suit their plans for world domination and they maintain the name, just coz it sells (or used to sell, well in the US it still sells, it's kind of jaded here in Europe).

That's not what I'm saying. To use your metaphor, I'm saying that religion is only one brand of gun and there are many brands on the market. That being the case, would it do any good at all to put Smith & Wesson out of business while a dozen other brands remain in the market? Or does it make any sense to 'evolve' beyond the need for Smith & Wesson but not other brands?

viniketa wrote:Removal of "hate speech" from human minds, removal of beginningless ignorance, would seem to be the task.

I use this word a lot too - ironically I am supposed to believe that all karmic results which appear in my experience originate from me. George W Bush didn't just appear in my life out of nowhere, did he? I wonder if he uses the "them" word too?

Welcome to the Great Satan - and I'm it.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that "nonsense".

username wrote: As I said before and misread in zeal, my only concern is to respect the beliefs and religions and Buddhism of many others in this their gathering (cyber)place and respect their many and collective dimensions.

As I clarified, "Buddhism", the religion, has been created out by 19th century colonial forces that ghettoized Buddhadharma into a convienient corner. In other words, though many westerners are attached to "Buddhism", they attach to their chosen expression of Buddhadharma and turn it into a tribe, a sect, etc. Surely even you can see this is wrong.

As for the tulku system, there are a number of tulkus I have talked to, or read in print, who agree with my point of view about the tulku system. As I also clarified, just becuase I do not agree with the Tulku system, that does not mean I reject in principle yang srid, rebirths, of experienced practitioners and so on. I also do not reject nirmanakāyas and so on.

But I definitely think the tulku system is an anachronism. The Karmapa debacle is a perfect example -- the whole thing on all sides was and is about money and power.

As for your posts: whatever they may think of me, everyone here knows that you take things out of context, engage in massive projections, and frequently are involved in flame wars that leave others scratching their heads in puzzlement about why you have your knickers in a bunch about this and that.

You're making a number of distinctions in this thread that some readers seem to be confused by. The way I see it, you're distinguishing BuddhaDharma as a body (or tradition) of knowledge and practices from religious institutions and structures on one side, and religious ideologies on the other. You clearly value the knowledge and the practices, while you see the latter two (institutions and ideologies) as outmoded, counterproductive, and worse. Is this an accurate summary?

You're making a number of distinctions in this thread that some readers seem to be confused by. The way I see it, you're distinguishing BuddhaDharma as a body (or tradition) of knowledge and practices from religious institutions and structures on one side, and religious ideologies on the other. You clearly value the knowledge and the practices, while you see the latter two (institutions and ideologies) as outmoded, counterproductive, and worse. Is this an accurate summary?

To state it better: Dharma knowledge does not come from religious institutions and structures. I am distinguishing Dharma on the one hand, and religious institutions, structures and ideologies since the latter item is chief in the formation of the two former items.

Dharma knowledge does not come from institutions. It comes solely from teachers.

username wrote: As I said before and misread in zeal, my only concern is to respect the beliefs and religions and Buddhism of many others in this their gathering (cyber)place and respect their many and collective dimensions.

As I clarified, "Buddhism", the religion, has been created out by 19th century colonial forces that ghettoized Buddhadharma into a convienient corner. In other words, though many westerners are attached to "Buddhism", they attach to their chosen expression of Buddhadharma and turn it into a tribe, a sect, etc. Surely even you can see this is wrong.

As for the tulku system, there are a number of tulkus I have talked to, or read in print, who agree with my point of view about the tulku system. As I also clarified, just becuase I do not agree with the Tulku system, that does not mean I reject in principle yang srid, rebirths, of experienced practitioners and so on. I also do not reject nirmanakāyas and so on.

But I definitely think the tulku system is an anachronism. The Karmapa debacle is a perfect example -- the whole thing on all sides was and is about money and power.

As for your posts: whatever they may think of me, everyone here knows that you take things out of context, engage in massive projections, and frequently are involved in flame wars that leave others scratching their heads in puzzlement about why you have your knickers in a bunch about this and that.

M

You do not retract your proven false accusations of me as religious, fanatic, not reading properly etc. but add to them. If we accept your definition that religion=ideology as conceded then all of the above actually applies to yourself. On the tulku system you said many years ago elsewhere, before e-sangha, how a certain early days lama of yours convinced you of why the whole tulku system, including the lineages of the Dalai Lamas & Karmapas, are invalid. I know him and disagree with him. He is wrong. As a major Sakya leader said the Tulku system despite it's faults is a great benefit but will be ended according to prophecies. I agree with him. It will be ended by negative forces but some of us shall oppose those negative forces as long as possible. It is the same with religions and Buddhism.

You do not respond to the fact if religion is an ideology, then you will have to dismantle all religious/ideological institutions. This by definition will be the sole surviving ruling ideological (religious) system denying all else as in 1984, all in the name of Dzogchen. This is an absurd self contradictory proposition. Furthermore these are like high school essay level chatter. I suggest if you are serious to first get a degree which I believe you do not have. Then do a Masters followed by a PhD before making novel claims in the name of Social History.

This is the normal route in modern rational secular academic world that people like me belong to. Otherwise no academic takes any major thesis on how to review the field of Social History and propose a plan of action seriously as an academically researched venture. This is basically bar talk and exciting a few impressionable with a simplistic personal novel world view of history and a political agenda of action, a simplistic populist rousing.

Here and now and in future and elsewhere I will not accept and oppose your target list of:

- The Tulku system- The continuation of the lineages and offices of the Dalai Lamas & Karmapas- All religions- BuddhismI would like to point to newcomers that you do not speak for ChNN on the above matters nor his son who you stated you do not follow as you have not taken teachings from him nor are they the positions of the Dzogchen Community. These are merely your own personal views, on record for future plus a few of your friends, about entities that need to be evolved out of by all humanity. Starting with religious and Buddhist folk on this forum. I disagree. Best wishes.

You're making a number of distinctions in this thread that some readers seem to be confused by. The way I see it, you're distinguishing BuddhaDharma as a body (or tradition) of knowledge and practices from religious institutions and structures on one side, and religious ideologies on the other. You clearly value the knowledge and the practices, while you see the latter two (institutions and ideologies) as outmoded, counterproductive, and worse. Is this an accurate summary?

To state it better: Dharma knowledge does not come from religious institutions and structures. I am distinguishing Dharma on the one hand, and religious institutions, structures and ideologies since the latter item is chief in the formation of the two former items.

Dharma knowledge does not come from institutions. It comes solely from teachers.

Don't you make it a little to simple for yourself Malcolm? I have this picture of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche on the golden throne in Lerab Ling teaching the Dzogchen Desum. This is Dharma being widely spread through a religious institution. Isn't this completely ok and the way it often were and is in Tibet and elsewhere?

/magnus

Last edited by heart on Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

username wrote:Furthermore these are like high school essay level chatter. I suggest if you are serious to first get a degree which I believe you do not have. Then do a Masters followed by a PhD before making novel claims in the name of Social History.

This is the normal route in modern rational secular academic world that people like me belong to. Otherwise no academic takes any major thesis on how to review the field of Social History and propose a plan of action seriously as an academically researched venture. This is basically bar talk and exciting a few impressionable with a simplistic personal novel world view of history and a political agenda of action, a simplistic populist rousing.

I'm not really interested in addressing your personal grudge against Malcolm and his "novel world view", but I have to say that apart from posting things offensive to, and being patronizing towards, your grand nemesis you also pretty regularly succeed in being chillingly patronizing to other posters in the thread.

If you feel you really must talk constantly about the "impressionable" and naive few whom Malcolm has lamentably converted to his erroneous "simplistic personal novel world view", please, at least refer to them (us?) by names. Otherwise your elitism will be, as it is right now, really scathing: it's as if there were just you, your archenemy, a thinning homogenous mass of his mooks plus a silent audience that, utterly spellbound and awed, just follows the dazzling plot of the thread.

You're making a number of distinctions in this thread that some readers seem to be confused by. The way I see it, you're distinguishing BuddhaDharma as a body (or tradition) of knowledge and practices from religious institutions and structures on one side, and religious ideologies on the other. You clearly value the knowledge and the practices, while you see the latter two (institutions and ideologies) as outmoded, counterproductive, and worse. Is this an accurate summary?

To state it better: Dharma knowledge does not come from religious institutions and structures. I am distinguishing Dharma on the one hand, and religious institutions, structures and ideologies since the latter item is chief in the formation of the two former items.

Dharma knowledge does not come from institutions. It comes solely from teachers.

Don't you make it a little to simple for yourself Malcolm? I have this picture of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche on the golden throne in Lerab Ling teaching the Dzogchen Desum. This is Dharma being widely spread through a religious institution. Isn't this completely ok and the way it often were and is in Tibet and elsewhere?

What makes you think I have any interest in responding to your rude and aggressive caricatures and exaggerations? As I told you in private, if you don't cease harassing me, I will seek adminstrative releif. It has been several months of this nonesense, and even I have a limit to my patience.